DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003698273-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-04-28

000110542

Contested design: 003698273-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay the applicant’s fixed costs of EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 0036982730001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Glaxo Group Limitedvia PDF extraction

United Kingdom (GB)

980 Great West Road, Brentford, Middlesex TW8 9GS, United Kingdom

Holder · RCD owner

Chia Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

No. 369 Yuzhou South Road Lianyungang City, Jiangsu Province 222062, People’s Republic of China

Prior art cited (2)

Registered RCDD1

prefilled multi-unit dose dry powder inhaler

registered Community design No 002678292-0001 · Office's designs database · disclosed 2015-04-23

Trade mark

design depicted in a refused EU trade mark application for an inhaler

EU trade mark application No 14 178 594 · EUIPO decision refusing the application · disclosed 2016-02-17

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the inhaler RCD lacked individual character over Celon’s earlier RCD and a refused EU trade mark application published before the filing date.
  • The holder said the shield and merlon ornamentation, grip details, and the functional context of multi-unit dry powder inhalers gave the contested design a different overall impression.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of D1, found at least average designer freedom for dry powder inhalers, and held that the shared contours, casing structure, and components dominated minor differences.
  • It concluded that the contested RCD lacked individual character under Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Articles 4(1) and 6, so the application was upheld and the RCD invalidated.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila CELISOVA
  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

24.04

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000131246

vs Life Vac LLC

2026-04-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000131089

vs Rongrong Gao

2026-04-23REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000128555

vs Juliane Hesse-Ilyas

2026-02-24REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000129035

vs OMNIOXY SPÓŁKA AKCYJNA

2025-09-29REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000127199

vs Xiamen Tuoke Trading Co., Ltd.

2025-03-10REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000125355

vs Shenzhen Sainuotong Technology Co., Ltd.

2024-10-23REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000125317

vs Life Vac LLC

2024-08-16REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248
000123775

vs Schunk Ingenieurkeramik GmbH

2024-07-24REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)248